HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP202000018 Review Comments Major Amendment, Final Site Plan 2020-12-0900UNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 229024596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
December 9.2020
Keane Rucker, EIT
Shimp Engineering, P.C.
912 E. High Street
Charlottesville, VA 22902
(434) 227-5140 / keane@shimp-engineering.com
RE: Comment Letter for SDP-2020-00018 (Brady Bushey Ford — Major Amendment); 3" Submittal
Dear Mr. Rucker:
The Planner for the Planning Services Division of the Albemarle County Department of Community
Development will recommend approval of the plan referred to above when the following items have been
satisfactorily addressed. (The following comments are those that have been identified at this time. Additional
comments or conditions may be added or eliminated based on further review.) [Each comment is preceded by
the applicable reference to the Albemarle County Code.]
The original comments from the first review and action letter for SDP2020-00018 are in gray font. Follow-up
comments from the review of the second submittal are in bolded black font. Please address these follow-up
comments as well.
Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference to Chapter 18 of the Albemarle County Code (Zoning
Ordinance), unless otherwise specified. (The following comments are those that have been identified at this time;
additional comments may be added or eliminated based on further review.)
Review comments from the other reviewing divisions and agencies are also attached.
Please submit ten (10) copies of the revised plan to the Community Development Department when revisions have
been made.
Please contact me at your earliest convenience if you have questions or require additional information or assistance.
Sincerely,
Andy Reitelbach
Senior Planner / areitelbach@albemarle.org / (434)-296-5832 x 3261
1
Albemarle County Planning Services (Planner) — Andy Reitelbach, areitelbachgalbemarle.org — Requested
Changes:
1. 130.6.3(a)2(b); SP1994-000041 This proposed project requires an amendment to special use permit SP1994-
00004, for outdoor storage, display, and sales uses in the Entrance Corridor. The changes proposed on TMP 78-
6 are not in general accord with the concept plan approved as part of SP1994-00004. An additional building is
proposed for this parcel, along with new display spaces that are not shown on the approved plan. These changes
will require an amendment to the special use permit.
Because some of these proposed changes and display spaces cross onto TMP 78-7, it is recommended that a
boundary line adjustment occur prior to the SP so that parcel 7 can remain separate and not be considered as a
part of the special use permit. An SP is not required, per discussions with Zoning division. However, the 7
proposed new spaces labelled as "employee/service" spaces in the center -front of the property, between the two
entrances, need to be removed, as they are not in compliance with the approved 1994 SP. Comment addressed.
2. [32.5.2(b); 32.5.2(n)] Revise the parking schedule on the cover sheet of the site plan and the labels on the plan
sheets.
a. The number of spaces added up between the two different uses listed in the parking schedule is 242;
however, the total number of spaces said to be provided is 243. Comment has been addressed.
b. Counting the number of spaces on sheet C4, there are more than 243 spaces provided, including the
accessible spaces in front of the sales and service buildings on TMP 78-6, which do not appear to be
included in the total of 243 when counting the full number of spaces. There are only 240 parking spaces
labelled as being for customers/employees/service spaces, even though the cover sheet identifies there
being 242 spaces. The discrepancy appears to be the small parking lot to the east of Building B. There
are only 18 spaces depicted, even though the label says there are 20 employee/service spaces. Revise the
cover sheet to state there are only 240 spaces, or add an additional 2 spaces in somewhere else.
In addition, the row of "13" spaces north of Buildings B and C actually only has 12 spaces. 12 spaces
would make sense with the overall label for that area identifying 34 spaces (12 + the 22 spaces directly
south of the preserved steep slopes), so revise the "13" to a "12." It appears that there continues to be
miscalculations in the number of parking spaces provided. On the cover sheet, it states that there
are 225 spaces provided. However, 181+46=227 spaces, based on the numbers provided. In
addition, counting the number of spaces depicted on sheet C4 that are not display spaces, I can
only find 224 spaces. Part of the issue may be in the existing parking lot behind Building A2,
there's a label for 56 spaces, but the individual numbers only add up to 55 (unless the one van
accessible space by itself on the northwest side of the building is counted as a part of that 56, then
then that subtotal works). However, there are still only 224 spaces depicted.
c. This site cannot have more than 243 spaces, which is 20% more than the required amount. See comment
Ile below. Comment addressed.
d. Clearly label which spaces are for display, which are for employee parking, and which are for customer
parking. Some areas are not clear. There are new areas of parking spaces on TMP 78-6 that are double -
stacked. These spaces are not labelled as display. However, employee/customer parking spaces cannot
be double -stacked. This comment has not been addressed. Spaces for employee/service parking cannot
be double-parked. Areas of double -stacking that need to be revised include the two rows of 7 space each
between the two front entrances to the site, and the 16 spaces in the parking lot east of Building B.
Comment addressed.
e. Identify the types of spaces in the "existing paved parking area" at the rear of TMP 78-7. Are these
display, customer, storage, etc.? These spaces were not included in the overall parking count and could
possibly increase the number of spaces on the site even more over the 243 maximum number permitted.
This comment has not been addressed. What kind of parking is proposed here? Customer, display,
service, storage, something else? Elaborate. Comment addressed.
3. [32.5.2(n); 4.12.13; 4.12.191 Provide the dimensions of the dumpster pads.
The dumpster pad on TMP 78-7 appears to interfere with vehicular circulation. Revise the location.
Screening of dumpster pads is required. Provide the screening materials proposed to be used and profile of the
enclosure. Identity the height of the retaining wall around the dumpster pad. Comment addressed.
4. [32.5.2(n)] Railings or guard rails are required on the retaining walls. Show these rails. Is a handrail proposed
for the retaining wall around the dumpster pad behind Building B? Comment addressed.
5. [32.5.2(n)] Depict the obstruction -free two-ft. overhang required for parking spaces that are 16 ft. in depth.
Provide the 2-ft. overhang for the ten (10) spaces on the far eastern side of the property, adjacent to TMP 78-9.
Comment addressed.
6. [32.5.2(n)] Provide the footprint square footage of the new sales wings on the enlarged building on TMP 78-7.
The total proposed new square footage of the buildings as shown on the plan does not match that which is
identified on the cover sheet. There is a difference of about 3,000 square feet. Clarify this discrepancy. Is the
building in the back paved parking area of TMP 78-7 included within the square footage identified on the cover
sheet? Comment addressed.
7. [32.7.2.31 Provide internal sidewalks or crosswalks on the site to connect the buildings and to connect the
sidewalk along Route 250 with the enlarged sales building. Provide an accessible ramp for the sidewalk in front
of the enlarged sales building. Accessible ramps need to be provided at all spots where the ends of sidewalks
meet travelways, including between Buildings B and C, and in front of Building A. Also, the sidewalk referenced
in the comment response letter connecting Route 250 to Building A does not appear to be depicted on the site
plan. Show this connection. Accessible ramps need to be provided for the sidewalk leading from the front
of Building B to the front of Building C.
8. [4.17; 32.7.8] Include footcandle measurements for the existing lights to demonstrate that the combination of
the existing non -conforming lights with the proposed new lights does not increase the footcandle measurements
above the permitted range, where the light from the poles would overlap. It appears that the existing lights are
labelled as "D" on the lighting plan. Include this identification in the key on sheet C8. None of the fights on the
photometric plan have the labels that are identified in the lighting schedule. The footnote indicates that
the existing fights are labelled as "A"; however, none of the existing lights appear to have an "A" labelling
them. Revise the labelling regimen.
9. 14.17; 32.7.8] There are several new light poles that appear to be placed on top of trees shown on the landscaping
plan. These lights include the following: B-1, B-2, and B-12. Shift either the light poles or the trees. Light B-2
now appears to be located within the required 2-ft. overhang for the parking spaces. Revise the location of this
light. Comment addressed.
10. [32.7.91 Identify the location(s) of the 14,102 sq. ft. of the required interior/parking lot landscaping, as well as
the trees and shrubs used for this landscaping. The dotted hatch mentioned in the comment response letter does
not appear on the landscape plan. Clarify where the interior/parking lot landscaping is proposed on the plan. If
the "low maintenance ground cover" is the dotted hatch, these areas are not sufficient for the required landscaping
and are in the wrong locations for this required landscaping. Comment addressed.
11. [32.7.91 Revise the "tree per 10 parking spaces" calculations, as the display spaces must be included as well.
Provide the additional trees required once these spaces are included in the calculations. Revise this calculation
to take into account the comments made in comment #11 above, so that staff can accurately review the required
number of parking lot trees Comment addressed.
12. [32.7.91 The required amount of tree canopy is proposing to use a significant amount of existing tree canopy.
Provide a conservation checklist in accordance with 32.7.9.4(b)2 in order to satisfy this requirement. Also,
identify those trees and landscaped areas proposed to be preserved in order to meet this requirement. Comment
has been partially addressed. Remove the plants that will not be at least 5 feet in height within 10 years from the
canopy calculations. Comment addressed.
3
13. Identify what the battery area is and what is proposed there. Comment addressed.
14. Now that staff has a better understanding of where the proposed parking is and which parking spaces are
proposed for each use, it has been determined that there is not enough parking on each of the two lots for them
to be able to stand separately if the parcels were sold to different owners. A shared parking agreement will be
required to be reviewed, approved, and recorded at the courthouse for these two properties before the site plan
can be approved, ensuring that sufficient parking is provided for each use on each parcel. Comment has not been
addressed. A shared parking agreement will be required prior to approval of the site plan. The shared
parking agreement will need to be reviewed by County staff and recorded at the courthouse prior to
approval. Please let me know if you would like an example of previously recorded shared parking
agreements for reference. With the proposed closure of the entrance directly into TMP 78-6 from U.S.
Route 250, a shared access easement will also need to be a part of this agreement to ensure continued
access onto 78-6. It is recommended that these items be included with the easement plat required by
Engineering for the stormwater management facilities and access easements; however, the various
agreements and easements can be done with separate plats and deeds if so desired.
Comments from Other Reviewin¢ Departments and A¢encies
Albemarle County Architectural Review Board (ARB)
Margaret Maliszewski, mmaliszewski@albemarle.org — Requested changes; see the comments below:
1. Indicate the location of the Porsche DC charge box on the plan. (If the location was already added to the plan
with revision date of 11/30/20, please describe the location or highlight it on the plan.) Ensure that it is screened
from view from the EC street.
2. The site plan now shows the entrance/exit on parcel 78-6 to be closed. The landscape plan still shows
landscaping associated with the entrance/exit. Revise the landscape plan to show a consistent appearance along
the EC frontage.
3. Provide documentation from ACSA that the proposed frontage landscaping is acceptable.
4. Comments on the Comprehensive Sign Plan and glass sample will be forwarded soon.
Albemarle County Engineering Services (Engineer)
John Anderson, janderson2galbemarle.org — Requested changes; see the attached memo.
Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA)
Richard Nelson, melson@serviceauthority.org — Requested changes; see the comments below:
Submit 3 copies of the utility plan for review and approval, now that there is a water main extension on site.
Confirm if the existing metal building # 1290 is currently served by water. The presence of existing sewer
indicates this may already be served by water.
Provide fixture counts.
Proposed landscape plan has plantings closer than 10 feet from the existing water main along 250.
Include water main profile.
Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT)
Adam Moore, Adam.Moorekvdot.vir iginia.gov — Requested changes; see the attached memo.
n
� AI
�h
�lRGIN�P
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
Site Plan Review
Project title:
Brady -Bushey Ford — Major Site Plan Amendment
Project file number:
SDP2020-00018
Plan prepares
Shimp Engineering, 912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902
Justin Shimp, PE [ justin(i�shimp-engineering.com ]
Owner or rep.:
Flow 1300 Richmond LLC / 500 West 5' Street, Winston-Salem, NC 27101
[ bthomasAflowauto.com ]
Plan received date:
4 Mar 2020
(Rev. 1)
26 Jun 2020
(Rev. 2)
5 Nov 2020
Date of comments:
7 Apr 2020
(Rev. 1)
31 Jul 2020
(Rev. 2)
6 Nov 2020
Plan Coordinator:
Andy Reitelbach
Reviewer:
John Anderson
SDP2020-00018
1. Recommend revise title to include ref, to project file number: SDP202000018. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
2. Provide deed bk.-pg, ref to interparcel access easements (Final Site Plan checklist, Easements, 0 item).
(Rev. 1) Comment persists. Applicant (6/15/20 letter): `No interparcel access easements exist.' This
appears inconsistent with SDP201800089, Final Site Development Plan for Pantops Comer (image below),
[image removed with Rev. 2 review comments] which shows an interparcel 37' access easement. It seems
there should be a corresponding easement on the Brady -Bushey parcel, unless easement operates in one
direction only (it may), as easement that allows one-way travel from Brady -Bushey to Pantops Corner, but
not travel in the reverse direction. In that instance (if this is an intentional, 1-way easement), comment will
be withdrawn. (Rev. 2) Addressed. Applicant response (10/22/20 letter): `Yes, this access easement only
operates in one direction —its function is to allow vehicle delivery trucks to enter the property. Those trucks
(and customers/employees) will depart via Rte 250 entrance.'
3. Major site plan amendment approval requires an Approved VSMP /WPO plan. Please submit VMSP
/WPO application at earliest convenience. (Rev. 1) May persist. Applicant: `Acknowledged. A VSMP
plan has been submitted.' A quick county system (CV) search yields no match for Brady -Bushey Ford
VSMP, but Engineering anticipates WPO plan submittal, per Applicant response. (Rev. 2) Addressed.
WPO202000032 review is in process.
4. Include title sheet Note that preserved and managed steep slopes exist on parcels. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
5. VMSP /WPO plan approval requires permanent SWM facility easement plat recordation (for any on -site
SWM facilities). (Rev. 1) May persist. Applicant: `Acknowledged. SWM easement is now shown on the
plans and an easement plat will be recorded prior to approval.' As ollow-up: Please direct reviewer to sheet
showing SWM easement for proposed dry detention pond. It appears an identifying label was cutoff on C4.
(Rev. 2) Addressed.
6. Provide brief narrative of Stormwater Management on C 1. Consider stormwater quantity and quality in
context of increased impervious area /post -developed land cover, 100-year floodplain, stream buffer, etc.
(Rev. 1) Addressed, but as follow-up (please address via VSMP plan), please note that discharge to
mapped floodplain meets flood protection portion of 9AVAC25-870-66.C, but design must also address
channel protection (9AVAC25-870-66.B). Looking forward:
C4
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 9
a. Relatively recent DEQ correspondence explains that energy balance applies at limits of analysis
for discharge to natural conveyance. That is, simply discharging to a natural conveyance at limits
of analysis is insufficient. Instead, at limits of analysis, discharge to natural conveyance requires
demonstration that Qi-y, post -development meets the Energy balance equation requirement. (Rev.
2) Addressed via WPO202000032. Applicant: `Noted ... This condition has been met and is
addressed in the VSMP plan WPO202000032.'
b. Please revise label, 05, to read: `Conveyance will be designed to meet channel and flood
protection requirements, see WPO plan' since this is where design will meet requirements, and
where Albemarle County will evaluate design for channel and flood protection compliance. (Rev.
2) Addressed.
c. Do not locate proposed SWM facility on preserved steep slopes since SWM facilities are not listed
as a by -right use (18-30.7.4.b.1.). Applicant may apply for a special use permit to allow siting a
SWM facility on preserved steep slopes —see 18-30.7.4.b.2. (Rev. 2) Addressed. Applicant: `The
proposed SWM facility is outside of the preserved slopes. Following our correspondence on
September 2, 2020, a note has been added to ensure no disturbance of preserved steep slopes
during construction and maintenance.'
7. Evaluate drainage feature at north property boundary for perennial stream features. Include note on plans
that perennial stream exists or does not exist on subject parcel. GIS stream buffer layer may be unreliable
at this location. Provide date of field evaluation, and any field data. Ref. code 17-600.A. (Rev. 1) May
persist. Applicant: `USGS maps categorize this stream as intermittent. This was field verified on May 21,
2020, by Justin Shimg P.E. No aquatic life was found in the stream. Stream bottom was rounded, rather
than cut with deep grooves. Additionally, debris was blocking a portion of the stream which suggested that
flows were not strong enough to clear out the debris. A note is now included on the plans near the stream
location stating that it is intermittent and was field verified.' Note cannot be located. In this circumstance,
a plan sheet reference would be very helpful. Please guide reviewer to sheet with note. (Rev. 2)
Addressed. Applicant: `Note is located on C2, the note is located around property line L3-L4.'
8. Show and label preserved and managed steep slopes on C3, C4, C5. (Rev. 1) Partially addressed. As
follow-up: Please label preserved and managed steep slopes on C3, C4, C5. (Rev. 2) Addressed.
9. Resolve WP02018-00088, Amendment 1 as prerequisite to SDP202000018 approval (email, this date).
(Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant: `Revised plans have been submitted and approved.'
10. Revise C3 consistent with actual existing conditions (image, below). Shimg Engineering should have
access to designs for development on adjacent parcels to the west. Please rely on these, as well as satellite
imagery ` 1 11 3 20 ifn ge b_1o... image removed with Rev. 1 comments Also, lease ref.
g ry (__ __......_ _: g ) P
Final Site Plan checklist for plan reviewers, Existing conditions plan view information, I` item: `accurate
current existing topography at the time of submittal, including all existing features, and any recent
disturbances.' (Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant: `The existing conditions page has been updated to show the
stockpiles that exist on site currently. Please note that the original topography (without stockpiles) is shown
on other grading pages, as stockpiles will be moved at the beginning of construction and it is easier to see
how the grading will tie in once the stockpiles are removed.'
11. Show pipes as well as storm MH /inlet structures on C4, or turn storm utility MH /inlet layer off. (Rev. 1)
Addressed,
12. Revise loading zone east of existing service building, TMP 78-7, Lot 8, since not adjacent to the structure it
serves and since it impedes parking spaces to north, and circulation, generally. Ref. 18-4.12.13.a.b. (Rev. 1)
Addressed,
13. Provide autotum figure for dumpster pad. Use single -unit (SU) truck design vehicle. Ref. Fig. 1, VDOT
Road Design Manual, Appendix B(1), 20-ft wheelbase. Include entering site, reverse maneuver, and
exiting site. (Rev.1) Partially addressed. As follow-up: SU-30 does not align with dumpster. Operation
requires forks on waste management vehicle to align closely with slots in dumpster, oblique alignment does
not work. Ref, autotum fig., C 13. Provide design sufficient to allow proper operation. Note that in image
below, vehicle strikes dumpster, dumpster enclosure, and grazes a curb with no appreciable clearance.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 9
(Rev. 2) Addressed. `The curbing in the area has been slightly revised. The dumpster location has also
been revised and can now adequately accommodate truck movement. See updated autotum diagram on
C 13.'
14. Provide field survey data that supports note that `portion of preserved slopes disturbed is less than 25%.'
Engineering Div. has received no information that would exclude a portion of the steep slopes overlay
district (preserved steep slopes) from limits against disturbance or development found at 18-30.3. (Rev. 1)
Addressed. Applicant: `LIDAR data showed that the slopes we had previously proposed to be disturbed
were less than 25%, however we have no way of submitting a certified survey now because approximately
3,000 CY dirt have been placed directly blocking those slopes. The site plan has been revised showing 4
less parking spaces in that area to allow for the retaining wall to remain outside of the preserved slopes
district.'
NE ] _.
DI-3n
Er M� �Ot"
E%. MILS
V `� 1}�� ¢�j NEW �I
15. Provide guardrail (VDOT GR-1 or GR-2) at top of4', 13' and 6' proposed retaining walls along northern
edge of parking on TM 78-6, Lot 7. (Ref. Retaining Wall Plan checklist for plan reviewers, Plans, 2' item).
(Rev. 1) Not addressed. Applicant: `Guardrail has been provided along the northem-most wall where a
car would be traveling with potentially greater speed in the direction of the wall. The other walls are along
parking spaces where cars would be either stopped or driving slowly, and we do not see the need for
anything other than handrails in these locations.' Asfollow-up: Please revisit /consider review -comment
exchange for Oak Hill Convenience Store, SDP201800082 (SE project):
Engineering Review Comments
Page 4 of 9
a. Extensive exchange (email /perhaps meetings) to discuss guardrail for parking spaces fronting
retaining walls (Rev. 2) Addressed. Applicant: `Noted, we have provided guardrail along
retaining walls near parking areas.'
b. Exchange included Albemarle County Engineer who expressed not a preference but a requirement
for this design circumstance. (Rev. 2) Addressed. Applicant: `Noted.'
c. County Engineer affirmed rationale for guardrails for retaining walls next to parking (to prevent
vehicles from (however unlikely) crossing a retaining wall, from which there is no immediate
recovery) as structures that may help minimize risk of injury to persons, or damage to property.
(Rev. 2) Addressed. Applicant: `Noted.'
d. Final Site plan checklist for plan reviewers, p. 1 /last item: (Rev. 2) Addressed. Applicant:
`... correct, retaining wall checklist dictates guardrails shall be installed with new retaining walls.'
Retaining Wall Plans checklist. Any walls supporting roads or necessary infrastructure require
engineered plans (not generic manufacturer's details) and computations. {Design Manual, section 81 This
will also be required where walls are close to property lines and there is the danger of affecting
neighboring property, either during construction, with later failures, or with pedestrian or vehicle safety.
These concerns can be alleviate with layout spacing also. In any case, retaining walls will require
building permits at construction.
e. Retaining Wall checklist for plan reviewers, (Rev. 2) Addressed. Applicant: `...... correct,
retaining wall checklist dictates guardrails shall be installed with new retaining walls.'
Plans:
safety railing shown for retaining walls over 4' high
guardrail with VDOT designations or equivalent shown for retaining walls next to parking or travelways
VDOT approval for any walls in right-of-way
Accurate depiction of horizontal depth (batter) on site plans.
All structural reinforcement, steal, or geogrids specified.
All dimensions specified
Constructability; there should be no vertical cuts on property lines during construction, such that
abutting property does not become unstable. Adequate room for construction needs to be available.
f. Given this, emphasizing that (county) Engineering position is unchanged (nor will it), please
consider and respond to initial comment and provide guardrail at proposed 4' and 15' Max, height
walls west of 18 parking spaces, and east of 13 parking spaces. These are not display spaces, but
sections of a 54-parking space employee /service space parking lot. East of this parking lot are
unrecoverable preserved steep slopes (beyond 15' Max, ht. wall); west of this parking lot are
proposed 2:1 slopes (falling) to a 7' retaining wall on Pantops Corner parcel (4' Max. ht. wall).
Ref. SDP201800089 /SE. C5; orange highlight, image below. Engineering withdraws request for
GR-2 at 6' Max. ht. wall for 22 parking spaces, location shown in lower right of image below.
[image removed with Rev. 2 review comments) (Rev. 2) Addressed. Applicant: `Walls have now
been provided for 4' and 15' height walls where marked on image.'
From SDP201800089. C5 [ image removed with Rev. 2 review comments ]
g. New: Provide GR-2 at 18 display spaces, image, below. Existing slopes west of these 18 spaces
are 0.5:1 (10' h, 20' v) with a series of tiered walls presenting —20' drop onto the adjacent parcel.
40' grade break over 25' horiz represents unacceptable risk (at present, without guardrail), and risk
should Malloy convert display spaces to public use, or should parcel transfer or rezoning require
transition from display to public use parking spaces. Engineering requests design revision, there
may be an argument from a design or approval perspective, but only guardrail alleviates risk
inherent at these now -unprotected display spaces, and at other locations shown with this major
amendment. Please consider plan review checklists. Inadvertent risk presented by proposed
design and recently -constructed offsite improvements are the basis of review comment request.
(Rev. 2) Withdrawn. Applicant: `The existing slopes at west of that parking lot were shown
Engineering Review Comments
Page 5 of 9
based on a survey completed at time of offske retaining wall construction. Those slopes showed
the cut required to install the walls along with backfill and geogrid. Currently, there is only a 4'
vertical drop from the curb to the off -site walls. The top offsite wall is located about 13' from the
back of the curb —so the existing slope adjacent to the parking lot is about a 30% grade (slightly
flatter than a 3:1 slope.) So the biggest issue was that the topo that was shown is not
representative of the current site conditions, and has now been fixed. Based on the VDOT GRIT
manual, Figure 1 page 1-5, a guardrail is not warranted for 30% slopes. Since there is an existing
13' wide 30% slope adjacent to the parking lot, this should satisfy VDOT requirements. For
additional consideration, if Engineering were to interpret that the retaining walls offsite add an
additional 20' drop, there is no ordinance that requires an applicant to improve existing conditions
based on an existing offsite retaining wall. We do agree that if the applicant builds a wall that
requires guardrail, they have to provide that guardrail. However, the retaining wall checklist
covers new construction —construction completed as part of the site work. In this case, the wall is
simply an existing condition, albeit a recent one. Technically, the wall applicant should have
built a guard rail for the wall, if a guard rail were required. So to summarize, I think the
recoverable 30% slope does not require a GR at this location (based on VDOT chart), and even if
that wall were to require a GR, the ordinance should have required the wall applicant provide that
during wall construction. So for these reasons, we cannot find requirements for our client to
install a guardrail above the existing offsite retaining wall at the western boundary near TNT 78-
5A.' As follow-up:
• Request for guardrail is withdrawn.
• Request for GR was made, but is now withdrawn.
• Engineering recommends guardrail.
• If no GR, Engineering recommends a low -profile block wall that may prevent a car
inadvertently mounting curb, crossing the 13' strip, and possibly experiencing a 20'
vertical drop.
• A specific, unambiguous requirement may not exist in ordinance that requires applicant
(SE client Malloy Ford) to install a guardrail above the existing offste retaining wall at
the western boundary near TNT 78-5A. Malloy Ford may simply want to weigh the
decision and minimize potential liability that attends design that forsakes protection
beyond a modest concrete curb.
• Engineering rejects the argument that a pre-existing off -site 20' high retaining wall
forecloses site plan review request for GR on the Malloy Ford parcel.
• Consider this example (though not the case here): Site A constructs a 20' retaining wall
to develop Site A. This wall provides 20' vertical break to adjacent Site B, at higher
elevation. Site B is undeveloped at time Site A application is approved. There is no
indication that parking will be proposed in close proximity to the top of this newly -
constructed retaining wall. As consequence, Engineering requests handrail for the
retaining wall, but not guardrail. Later, Site B is developed. Site B proposes parking 13'
from the top of the retaining wall /20' drop. Engineering requires GR adjacent to parking
as a barrier to minimize risk that a vehicle may mount the curb, and within space
available, be unable to halt progress across a strip between curb and wall. Engineering
requests GR to protect Site B personnel, public, etc. In this example, Site A, developed
first, is allowed to construct a 20' high wall without GR, since no indication Site B will in
the future need GR to accompany unforeseen design /parking proximity.
• This example highlights circumstance where GR is required later but not with initial wall.
• Request for GR reflects reviewer's PE-credentialed approach that recognizes public
welfare as a consummate principle (minimize risk), request for GR provides assurance
that recognizes and helps protect this Applicant's interests, now and in the future. Intent
is not argumentative, intent is conservative approach to design that recognizes risk, that
seeks the best outcome. Engineering does not impose requirements where none exist,
Engineering Review Comments
Page 6 of 9
however finely drawn. Engineering (with GR comment) had hoped to engage on topic of
safe, conservative design in the public and Applicant's interest. We now recommend a
barrier behind existing concrete curb, to mitigate effects of unforeseen circumstance.
The case here: Engineering, during review of Pantops Comer FSP, raised issue/s relating
to retaining walls with Shimp Engineering (SE), then representing Pantops Corner. In
comment response, above, SE draws a distinction between requirements then vs. now,
stating `Technically, the wall applicant should have built a guard rail for the wall, if a
guard rail were required.' We appreciate and would like to examine this response in light
of SE response when issue of retaining walls /offsite easement (with Malloy Ford) was
raised with SE by J. Anderson during review of Pantops Comer (SUB201900059) plat.
Engineering did not request GR for the Pantops Comer retaining walls. It is unclear we
would have ever requested GR. In all likelihood, we would not have since GR would
have to be installed on adjacent parcel (Malloy Ford). Retaining wall design for Pantops
Comer ran to the property line and left no room to install GR on Pantops Comer parcel
(since wall locations critical to site development —hotel, Wawa, etc.). We cannot be
certain, since we did not request GR with Pantops Corner development. What we do
know is SE response when Engineering attempted to engage on topic of retaining wall
/off -site easement requirements when reviewing Pantops Comer development. Please
consider whether it is perhaps disingenuous to now state that Engineering should have
committed to require GR for these retaining walls, given resistance when Engineering
raised topic of easements (in 2019) tied to retaining walls to be constructed on Pantops
Comer parcel. It is one thing to say Engineering should ensure requirements are met
contemporaneous with development. It is another to say this while at the same time
forcefully resisting Engineering overtures to do that —to identify or ensure valid
ordinance requirements are met. Quotes below, from SE response to review comments,
Pantops Comer easement plat (SUB201900059).
o Applicant [SE] response: `Regardless of whether this is a current issue, you have
brought up a site plan review item. This is an easement plat, so while this
comment may be appreciated on the site plan (if indeed the County Attorney
deemed it an issue), this should not be applicable to this easement plat.'
o Applicant response: `The temporary grading easement on TMP 76-6, as shown
on previously submitted site/road plans for Pantops Corner, was already
recorded in DB4553 PG 473-486. This is not a proposed easement, nor is it
onsite so therefore it will not be shown on this plat.'
o Applicant response: `Plats are required to show all known easements on the
subject property. These are known easements, recorded in the Albemarle
courthouse in DB5147 PG 221, 228 & 229, therefore they will be shown. We
would like to remind County Engineering that their review is for engineering
items on this easement plat only. Please leave legal questions, such as debating
whether a recorded item is an easement, to the County Attorney, who is the
qualified professional in this matter. The existing easement will remain on the
plat as it is required to be shown.'
Again, Engineering did not request GR for Pantops Comer proposed retaining walls,
either when reviewing Pantops Comer Final Site Plan (SDP201800089) or easement plat
(SUB201900059). There was, however, a clear attempt to engage on topic of retaining
walls and off -site grading easement (on Malloy Ford parcel), but SE appeared disinclined
to engage on any but technical grounds, and Engineering relented, on both points.
Engineering encourages Malloy Ford (SE client) to consider consequence that may arise
should a vehicle, however unlikely, cross curb and retaining wall with a 20' vertical drop.
C5 SDP202000018
16.
17
18
19
20.
21.
22
Engineering Review Comments
Page 7 of 9
0
0"Y 1
y
rt 24'
Provide handrail (safety railing) labels for retaining walls over 4' high (see Retaining Wall checklist). (Rev.
1) Partially addressed. As follow-up: Provide handrail label for retaining wall (Max. ht. =8') east of
building B. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
Engineering defers to VDOT on entrance requirements from Richmond Road, U.S. Rt. 250. (Rev. 1)
Persists. Applicant: `Acknowledged. This is still being worked out with VDOT.' (Rev. 2) Addressed.
Applicant: `Coordination with VDOT is ongoing. It is likely that VDOT will approve the current strategy
(one full entrance with one right -in -only entrance).'
Engineering recommends provide distance from proposed revised entrance to adjacent entrances, east and
west (entrance 2, entrance 4, sheet C8). (Rev. 1) Addressed.
Sidewalk at SE comer of new sales building (FEE 419.50) appears < 5' w. Ensure all sidewalks are 5'
minimum width. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant: `Sidewalk at the SE corner of the new sales building
(now labeled Building A4) is 5 ft. the dimension is now shown. It does taper off to a smaller width, but it
is used to facilitate vehicular circulation, not pedestrian circulation since there is no door in that location.'
Label all sidewalk widths. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
Label drive aisle width between curbing from entrance 2 to buildings that are interior to TM 78-6, Lot 7.
(Rev. 2) Addressed.
Provide CG-12 pedestrian ramps at each entrance: 2, 3, 4. (Rev. 1) Partially addressed. As follow -
depict ramps as shown in CG-12 detail (radially /curved), see detail, CC 12 or, modem as needed if CG-12
does not offer precise depiction required to align ramps with pedestrian direction of travel. A visually
impaired pedestrian may `read' detectable ramp surfaces to align travel (similar to reading braille, by
touch). Note orientation of schematic representation of CG-12 ramps on C4. Note detail on C 12,
From C4: Examine orientation /graphic depiction of every CG-12 adjacent to U.S. Rt. 250, some within Rt.
250 RW. Virtually all require revision to show orientations that align detectable surfaces with receiving
ramps such that a visually impaired person does not stray into Rt. 250 by mistake. CG-12 design assists
visually impaired and ambulatory impaired, alike. Other VDOT standards /devices alert when it is safe to
enter a crosswalk; pavement markings and traffic signs alert motorists to the presence of pedestrians. All
of it may be needed to protect pedestrians, especially in highspeed or high traffic volume locations. U.S.
Rt. 250 presents both. CG-12 at this location is a critical design element; please show ramps in plan view,
as they are intended to be built to safely direct any pedestrian from one ramp to the next. (Rev. 2)
Addressed.
C5
C9
Engineering Review Comments
Page 8 of 9
�
CROSSWALK
TYPICAL PLACEMENT
AT INTERSECTION
WITHIN CROSSWALK
�ftE
coxsTmicrron
un�
.0 S XE.
DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE
B (PARALLEL) APPLICATION M'iU. r i0�.r�
MT1 W TIiM®gTAT 3A�
23. Wherever curb (CG-2) concentrates runoff against curbing, specify CG-6. Engineering understands this is
a dealership and that parking will be primarily for stored vehicles (automobile sales, services, and display).
Nevertheless, storm conveyance is critical to pavement integrity, which may affect retaining wall stability.
(Rev. 1) Addressed.
24. Include notes that this development: (Rev. 1) Addressed.
a. May not impact preserved steep slopes,
b. Is not authorized to impact preserved step slopes,
c. Is subject to steep slopes overlay district requirements (18-30.3), and
d. That preserved or managed steep slopes will be staked /flagged prior to land disturbance, and that
flags /stakes will be maintained for the duration of the project, to final completion.
25. Proposed 4', 6' and 13' high retaining walls support parking (infrastructure). Please submit geotechnical
retaining wall designs (PE -sealed) to Engineering as prerequisite to recommendation to approve major site
plan amendment. Note: detailed geotechnical design is also required with building permit applications for
retaining walls. (Rev. 1) Persists. Applicant: `Acknowledged. We have contacted a geotechnical engineer
and retaining wall design will be provided prior to approval.' Engineering appreciates this. (Rev. 2)
Persists. Applicant: `This is ongoing, geotech has not yet completed ret. wall plans.'
26. Add SL-1 labels to profiles for MH ht. >12'. MH Sir. A3 and A3a, for example. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
27. At Str. A2 and any MH Str. with vertical drops > 4', include note /label for Y:" steel plate in floor of
structure. Ref. VDOT Drainage Manual, 9.4.8.7. (p. 9-37, 9-38). (Rev. 1) Addressed.
28. Provide VDOT SL-1, IS-1, PB-1, GR-1, CG-6, CG-9a details on the plans (safety slab, inlet shaping, pipe
bedding, guardrail, curb /gutter, commercial entrance). (Rev. 1) Addressed,
29. Provide and label dimensions of existing outlet protection at Str. Al. Design relies on existing riprap ditch.
Provide dimensions of existing riprap ditch (typ). (Rev. 1) May persist. Applicant: `The existing outlet
Engineering Review Comments
Page 9 of 9
protection is now dimensioned on the plans (4 ft).' As follow-up: Please direct reviewer to which plan sheet
shows dimensions of existing outlet protection. (Rev. 2) Addressed.
30. Design relies on existing ditch downstream of Str. Al. Include notes on plans that existing riprap ditch
meets design requirements for channel and flood protection for manmade conveyance, if that is the case.
(Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant: `This is now noted on the site plan. The VSMP includes more specific
information about the existing conveyance channel adequacy.' Also, please seefollow- u at item 6. above.
(Rev. 2) Addressed. WPO202000032 is under review.
31. If existing riprap ditch does not provide adequate channel or flood protection, provide adequate design.
(Rev. 1) May persist. VSMP Plan should present details concerning adequate channel and flood protection.
(Rev. 2) Addressed. WPO202000032 is under review.
32. Revise storm Al -A6 design. Every pipe in this run has velocity that exceeds (VDOT Drainage Manual
9.4.8.7.) 10 fps standard. (Rev. 1) Withdrawn. Review error. Applicant: `The referenced section is for
concrete pipes. HDPE pipes are significantly more resistant to abrasion. The design standards manual
states design velocities should be between 3 and 20 fps with a maximum pipe slope of o16%. All pipes
meet these standards.'
9.4.8.7 Maximum Grades
Slopes that incur uniform flow velocities in excess of 10 fps should be avoided because
of the potential for abrasion. Slopes in excess of 16% are not preferred because of the
need for anchor blocks. When anchor blocks are used, they should be installed at
bvery other pipe joint, as a minimum. (See Special Design Drawing No. A-73 and MA-
J3 for Anchor Details for Concrete Pipe)
33. Provide retaining wall safety railing detail. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
34. Provide LD-204, inlet design. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
Please feel free to call if any questions. Thank you
J. Anderson 434.296-5832 -x3069
SDP2020-00018 Brady -Bushey Ford FMJ 110620rev2
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Stephen C. Brich, P.E. 1401 East Broad Street
Commissioner Richmond, Virginia 23219
November 24, 2020
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Attn: Andy Reitelbach
Re: SDP-2020-00018- Brady Bushey Ford — Major Site Plan Amendment
Review #3
Dear Mr. Reitelbach:
(804) 786-2701
Fax: (804) 786,2940
The Department of Transportation, Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use
Section, has reviewed the above referenced plans as submitted by Shimp Engineering, dated
October 22, 2020 and offer the following comment.
1. The proposed entrances do not meet the Access Management standards within Appendix
F. Please revise the entrances accordingly or obtain an approved Access Management
Exception.
2. Please provide turn/taper warrants for both left and right turning movements into
proposed entrance. See appendix F, Section 3 — Turning Lanes.
3. Please note that the final site plan must show conformance with the VDOT Road Design
Manual Appendices B (1) and F, as well as any other applicable standards, regulations, or
other requirements.
If further information is desired, please contact Max Greene at 434-422-9894.
A VDOT Land Use Permit will be required prior to any work within the right of way. The
owner/developer must contact the Charlottesville Residency land Use Section at (434) 422-9399
for information pertaining to this process.
Sincerely,
Adam J. Moore, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Charlottesville Residency
VirginiaDOT.org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING